The Wire

VP Sara Duterte's defense counsel formally moved for a continuance at the impeachment trial, asking the court for more time to cross-examine the NBI chief on what they described as new topics raised during direct examination that, they argued, were not included in the articles of impeachment.

The defense also flagged a 100-page document introduced and admitted during direct examination, noting it was "unsigned and unnotarized" — and that they needed time to "intelligently cross-examine the witness" on its contents.

The prosecution immediately objected to the motion. The court has not yet ruled.

Pressing back against the defence's line of questioning on VP Sara Duterte's 57% public trust rating, the NBI chief offered a blunt rejoinder on what survey results mean for a criminal investigation.

"Pag-apu ating pinagbasian ang popularidad, ang ibig sabihin po ba nito — ang isang pinakakilala at popular na tao pwede lang ng gumawa ng crimen at di na..." he said ["If we base everything on popularity, does that mean that the most well-known and popular person can simply commit a crime and not..."], before being cut off.

He had earlier told the court that a survey is "just a snapshot of what's happening" and that his investigation would be based on law and evidence — not on public sentiment.

Pressed on his Daily Tribune editorial calling Vice President Sara Duterte an "ill-bred Bratinella," the NBI chief confirmed authorship but distanced himself from the term's origin.

"Siguro sa title na Bratinella, that is not my original," he said. "Yan ang bisbong naririnig namin — dating pangpangalawang pangulo Duterte ang tawag nila inday sa 'Bratinella'" ["That is the nickname we heard — the former Vice President Duterte's (circle) called Inday 'Bratinella'"]

He reiterated that the piece reflected his views "as an opinion writer" at the time, and maintained it was not material to his conduct as NBI director: "Palagi ko pong sinasabi — hindi po material itong ating pinag-usapan" ["I always say — this matter we are discussing is not material"].

The defense's attempt to use Vice President Sara Duterte's 57% trust rating as a counterweight to the ongoing NBI probe drew a pointed rebuke from the NBI chief on the stand.

"Pag-apu ating pinagbasian ang popularidad, ang ibig sabihin po ba nito ang isang pinakakilala at popular na tao pwede lang na gumawa ng krimen at di na..." he said — ["If we were to base (investigations) on popularity, does that mean the most well-known and popular person could simply commit a crime and not be..."] — before being cut off.

He had already framed his position plainly moments earlier: "Ang ating pag-imbestiga ay babasi sa batas, sa ebidensya at prosesong nandudun" ["Our investigation is based on the law, on evidence and on due process"] — not on survey snapshots.

The defense shifted its cross-examination to a direct attack on the NBI chief's impartiality, confronting him with editorials he wrote for the Daily Tribune — including one titled *'Bratinella Sara and Her Bad Habits'* dated November 7, 2024.

The on-screen headlines, visible to the impeachment court, included the line: *"Inday Sara is being unmasked in the legislative arena and by her own mouth as an ill-bred Bratinella; her public trust crumbles."* The NBI chief confirmed he wrote the piece, but offered context: "Siguro sa title na Bratinella, that is not my original. In-*fakaya* ko po na sulat yan — yan ang bisbong naririnig ng kami magkakasama" ["The title 'Bratinella' was not originally mine — it was the whisper we heard among ourselves"], he said, adding that the former president's circle had long called VP Sara *'Inday'* or *'Bratinella.'*

The defense also confirmed he had written a separate editorial criticising DPWH, framing the line of questioning as evidence that the NBI chief held pre-existing public opinions hostile to the Vice President — opinions now directly relevant to his credibility as the probe's lead witness.

More now on the NBI chief's exchange over the Bangkok regional summit invitation. He acknowledged he had not yet confirmed attendance with FBI Director Kash Patel before writing to a congressman to request leave — but said his reasoning was straightforward.

"Sinabi ko, nabakan naman pwede na mas mapaagha kung pwede lang," he told the court — ["I said, (the meeting) could perhaps be moved if at all possible"] — adding that he made clear to the congressman that the Bangkok event was second in his order of priorities. "Ang aking priority ang tumistigo po dito sa impeachment court," he said ["My priority is to testify here in the impeachment court"].

He said he relayed through a liaison that a separate day could be arranged to meet Patel — but the defense pressed on whether the NBI representative currently in Bangkok was only at division level, not director level, leaving the weight of the 'official invitation' claim in question.

A Social Weather Stations (SWS) public-trust survey flashed on screen during cross-examination shows Vice President Sara Duterte at 57% approval against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at 34%.

Defense counsel then put a pointed question to the NBI chief: does material like this — reflecting how Filipinos view and trust the Vice President — have any effect on the ongoing investigation?

The lead prosecutor immediately objected before an answer could be given. The presiding officer called for the basis of the objection, leaving the question — and its implications for the probe's impartiality — hanging in open court.

The examination took a sharper turn as the defense questioned not just the protocol of the FBI invitation but its very substance — asking NBI Director Melvin Matibag whether the summit in Bangkok was attended at director level or merely division level.

Matibag acknowledged that the NBI's representative at the summit was at division level, not director level.

The defense then delivered its most pointed question yet: whether Matibag knew if FBI Director Kash Patel had himself attended the Bangkok summit today — or whether Patel had also cancelled. Matibag did not give a clear answer on air.

A pointed line of questioning on the sequencing of Matibag's July 2026 letter to a congressman — in which he asked to be excused from congressional duties to attend the Bangkok summit — revealed that he had not yet secured a confirmation from FBI Director Kash Patel before sending it.

"Wala pa pong confirmation," Matibag said ["There was no confirmation yet"], explaining he had written to the congressman pre-emptively because he did not want to miss what he called a rare opportunity. "Sayang yung opportunity na makarating, makausap yung FBI Director," he added ["It would be a waste to miss the chance to go and speak with the FBI Director"].

The admission matters because the defense has been pressing whether the FBI relationship — and the letter from Patel that entered the court record on July 13, 2026 — represents a genuine institutional tie or something more, a question Matibag has repeatedly deflected by saying he does not know Patel personally.

Melvin Matibag offered the most detailed explanation yet for why FBI Director Kash Patel wrote to him personally, inviting him to a regional summit on scam center compounds and transnational organised crime in Thailand on July 21–22, 2026.

Matibag told the hearing that the NBI had assisted the US Embassy in Manila with the extradition of a fugitive described as owing the US government around 2.8 billion — a case so urgent the Americans feared it would take a long time. "Natuluhan po natin sila sa loob ng dalawang araw ang extradite," he said ["We were able to help them complete the extradition within two days"]. The FBI station chief subsequently called him to express gratitude, and the bureau sent a formal letter of thanks.

Matibag said that the Bangkok summit — displayed on screen as a National Bureau of Investigation invitation letter addressed directly to him — emerged from that relationship. "Hindi naman po basta lang ako hatend sa conference," he said ["I am not just attending the conference for nothing"] — adding there was an opportunity for a direct, personal meeting with the FBI Director on the sidelines. "So it's very rare that an FBI Director will talk to an FBI Director," he said.

More now on the July 2026 Asia-Pacific summit letter already entered into the record of the impeachment court.

The NBI director confirmed under cross-examination that a prior letter from FBI Director Kash Patel preceded his own letter to a House representative about the summit trip. Asked whether he personally knew Patel, he replied: "Hindi po siya personal ko kilala" ["He is not someone I know personally"].

The exchange came after the defense noted that Patel's letter — submitted to the court through the prosecution on July 13, 2026 — now forms part of the official record of the case. The line of questioning appears aimed at probing the legitimacy of the NBI chief's stated reason for travelling on July 21–22, 2026 — the same dates as the ongoing Senate hearing.

The defense introduced what it described as a letter dated July 10, 2026, written by the NBI chief to a Representative Luistro, in which he stated he would "personally attend to represent the NBI" at a summit of director and commissioner-general level law enforcement leaders across the Asia-Pacific.

The official confirmed the letter under questioning: "Opo" ["Yes"], he said twice when asked if he wrote it. The defense indicated it would confront him with a hard copy or flash it on screen — the implication of the line of questioning was not yet fully developed at the time of this post.

The NBI chief was confronted at the Senate impeachment hearing over a video that circulated online — which he acknowledged features him — describing it as an emotional outburst driven by anger and disappointment.

"Nanggalit at disappointment," he said, adding: "Tinatanggap na rin at tinagsisiyan" — ["I was angry and disappointed... I accept it and I regret it."] Asked to characterise what he said in the footage, he was direct: "Masama po ang aking mga sinabi, meron po nga hindi talaga kaya-aya" ["What I said was bad — there are things that were really unacceptable."].

The defense noted the video was not shown in the hearing room — citing respect for the rights of the parties involved, and the presence of the official's family members in the gallery.

Defending his earlier characterisation of VP Sara Duterte's November 23, 2024 press conference statement as a "clear confession of a plan to kill," the NBI chief said the bureau applied the same analytical methodology used by the US Secret Service.

"Nagamit ng Secret Service in America, ipapasuri ito — ito isang malinaw na confession ng isang tao na meron siyang isang plano," he said ["The methodology used by the Secret Service in America was applied — this is a clear confession by a person that they had a plan"].

He added that the reason the NBI has not publicly released the details of its confidential investigation is precisely to protect the integrity of what he called an "active, continuing and open investigation" with persons of interest still being developed.

The NBI chief told the impeachment court that the assassination-for-hire charge currently pending with the DOJ is not the end of the road — a stiffer charge could follow.

"Kung itong ongoing investigation progresses, that is the only time that a different charge will be executed against the vice president," he said ["If this ongoing investigation progresses, that is the only time that a different charge will be filed against the vice president"].

The statement came as defense counsel pressed him on whether his testimony was premature given that leads have not yet been fully run down and the alleged contact has not been confronted. The NBI chief maintained the testimony was not premature, pointing to VP Sara Duterte's own public statement as the basis for the case.

Asked by the defense why he testified about leads without providing details, the NBI chief said identifying suspects prematurely would derail the investigation.

"Hindi ko mo bangkit kung sino po ang persons of interest, lalun mo makukonformiso ang investigasyon na gumugulo," he said ["I cannot reveal who the persons of interest are — it would only compromise and disrupt the investigation"].

He added that if the investigation progresses, "that is the only time that a different charge will be" filed — signalling a more serious formal charge remains possible depending on what the leads produce.

The NBI chief pushed back hard on the defense's "trial by publicity" accusation, defending his agency's characterisation of VP Sara Duterte's public statement by invoking international law-enforcement practice.

"Nagamit ng Secret Service in America, ipapasokpuri ito na ito isang malinaw na confession ng isang tao na meron siyang isang plano," he said ["The Secret Service in America uses this — this is clearly a confession of a person who has a plan"], arguing that the bureau applied the same methodology to the Vice President's words.

He maintained that the statement — in which VP Sara mentioned Bongbong Marcos, Liza Marcos Araneta and Martin Marcos by name — was not premature testimony but a legitimate basis for an open, active investigation.

A tense new front opened in the hearing after the NBI chief defended his decision to testify despite an incomplete investigation — citing VP Sara Duterte's own public statement as his basis.

"Malinaw naman po sa statement ng ating Bise Presidente na meron siyang kinausap para patayin si Bongbong Marcos, si Lisa Marcos Araneta, si Martin Marcos," he said ["It is clear from the statement of our Vice President that she spoke to someone to have Bongbong Marcos, Lisa Marcos Araneta, and Martin Marcos killed"]. He added that they are applying methodology used by the US Secret Service, and that the statement amounts to "a clear confession" of a plan.

Defense counsel shot back immediately: "Isn't that a trial by publicity, which is not sanctioned?" — pressing the NBI chief on whether going public with unfinished leads prejudges the case before due process is complete.

In the sharpest exchange of the hearing so far, defense counsel pushed the NBI chief to agree with two pointed propositions — and he did not push back.

"The DOJ has not found any basis for contracting for assassination," counsel said on screen, before following up: "As of today, there is simply no evidence to warrant the filing of a formal charge for contracting for assassination."

The NBI chief's response, as shown on screen, did not dispute either statement — falling back instead on his earlier position that the matter remains "a continuing and open investigation." The exchange is the clearest on-the-record acknowledgment yet that no evidentiary threshold has been met on the most serious allegation facing VP Sara Duterte.

In one of the sharpest lines of the hearing, the NBI chief told the Senate that the most compelling evidence on the alleged assassination plot would come from the Vice President herself.

"Kaya mas maganda kung si VP Sara mismo magsabi dito kung meron siyang kinausap at kung sino kinausap," he said ["That is why it would be better if VP Sara herself comes here and says whether she spoke to someone and who she spoke to"].

The remark — volunteered by the prosecution's own witness — effectively hands the defense a talking point: after weeks of testimony, the NBI is still pointing to evidence it does not yet have.

Under continued cross-examination at the Philippine Senate, the NBI chief conceded that investigators have not yet confronted the person allegedly approached by Vice President Sara Duterte in connection with the assassination-for-hire probe.

Asked whether confronting the alleged individual is part of due process, the NBI chief agreed that it was — underscoring that the investigation remains open and incomplete on that critical point.

The exchange reinforced the defense's running argument that the case against the VP rests on unfinished investigative work, with no completed affidavit and no formal court charge on the contracting-for-assassination allegation.

In a pointed exchange, the defense walked Matibag through the legal standard that will govern the criminal cases already filed against the Vice President.

Counsel established that grave threats and inciting to sedition — the charges the NBI referred to the DOJ — are first-level court felonies, and that conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Asked whether that was a low or high bar, Matibag agreed: "In fact it is the highest threshold in criminal law."

The defense then drew out the implication for the public watching: "So hindi ka pwedeng magsampang kaso na hindi mo kaya patunayan" ["You cannot file a case that you cannot prove"] — and Matibag replied: "that when you file cases, there should be a reasonable certainty of conviction." If that certainty is absent, he agreed, "the accused must be acquitted" — a concession the defense will likely cite in closing.

Under cross-examination, NBI Director Matibag conceded that, as of today, there is no completed affidavit of investigation from the NBI on the allegation that Vice President Sara Duterte contracted someone to kill the President — and that the Department of Justice has not yet found basis to file a formal charge on that count.

Asked directly whether the DOJ had found evidence to warrant such a charge, Matibag replied: "That's why kung babalikan natin yung aking testimoniya, this is a continuing and an open investigation as to the contracting" ["That is why, going back to my testimony, this is a continuing and open investigation into the contracting"].

The only cases formally filed with the DOJ so far, he confirmed, are grave threats and inciting to sedition — not the more serious assassination-related allegation that has dominated public attention in the trial.

Pressed by defense counsel to answer a narrow yes-or-no question, NBI Director Matibag abandoned the question and delivered an unsolicited legal opinion — declaring that the vice president's alleged conduct amounted to "betrayal of public trust" because she had taken an oath "to protect, defend the Constitution, execute laws" and "do justice to others."

The presiding officer intervened immediately, telling Matibag his answer was "not responsive" and instructing him: "Kindly just answer the question."

The moment illustrated the tension running through the day's examination — a witness who came to court voluntarily, met prosecutors twice beforehand, and at points appeared to advocate rather than testify.

Defense counsel pushed NBI Director Matibag beyond the ground already covered — and drew a sharper admission. It is not merely that no formal court charge for contracting for assassination has been filed; Matibag acknowledged under questioning that the NBI has not yet completed an affidavit of investigation specifically on that crime.

When defense counsel put it plainly — "as of today, there's simply no evidence to warrant the filing of a formal charge for contracting for assassination" — Matibag did not dispute it directly. His response: "That's why kung babalikan natin yung akong testimoniya, this is a continuing and an open investigation as to the contracting" ["That's why if we go back to my testimony, this is a continuing and open investigation as to the contracting"].

The exchange sharpens the picture for the impeachment court: the allegation at the heart of the assassination threat narrative remains, by the NBI's own account, an open, incomplete investigation with no affidavit and no formal charge.

More now on the NBI's investigation into the alleged kill plot: Director Matibag confirmed under cross-examination that the case remains with the National Prosecution Service under the Department of Justice and has not yet resulted in a formal charge being filed before any court.

"As we speak, it is still pending," Matibag said, when asked whether a formal charge for the alleged assassination contract is before a court. The jurisdiction to file, he said, belongs to the National Prosecution Service — not the NBI.

The defense used the concession to draw a clear line: whatever the NBI has investigated, VP Sara Duterte has not yet been formally charged in any court with contracting for the killing of the President.

In a pointed exchange at the impeachment trial, the defense pressed NBI chief Matibag to confirm what formal charge has actually been filed with the Department of Justice against Vice President Sara Duterte — and the answer was significant.

Matibag acknowledged that the charge filed was grave threat and inciting to sedition — not contracting for assassination.

"That is exactly what my testimony covered," Matibag said, when asked whether VP Sara is currently being made to answer for contracting a person to kill the President — before clarifying that she is "being investigated for contracting a person to kill the President and that is a continuing threat not only to the life of the President but to the national security of our country." The defense immediately objected that his answer was not responsive to the question of what charge she is currently being made to answer.

Defense counsel pressed Matibag on whether President Marcos (referred to in proceedings as BBM) holds "control and supervision" over both the NBI and the Department of Justice.

"That is not exactly correct," Matibag said. "Only on the matter of appointment, but we enjoyed independence in the matter of investigation."

Defense counsel then asked Matibag to confirm he is a Marcos appointee — a line of questioning that appears aimed at establishing a chain of influence between the presidency and the NBI's probe into VP Sara Duterte's alleged kill plot.

NBI Director Matibag took the unusual step of volunteering a damaging admission mid-cross-examination, telling the impeachment court he would speak up "in order to save time."

"Ang posisyon ko kung ang aking asawa ay nag-endorse ng articles of impeachment — ito ay isang matter of public notice. Ang aking asawa ay isa sa mga endorsers ng impeachment," he said ["My position if my wife endorsed the articles of impeachment — this is a matter of public notice. My wife is one of the endorsers of the impeachment."].

Defense counsel responded: "Thank you for that admission, Director Matibag" — then immediately pressed him on why, despite that spousal relationship, he chose to appear and testify for the prosecution.

Director Matibag disclosed under cross-examination that he held two meetings with members of the prosecution team before appearing before the impeachment court today — a concession that goes directly to the question of his independence as a witness.

Defense counsel pressed him on whether he had any contact with prosecutors ahead of today's proceedings. "We conducted some meetings on this matter," Matibag acknowledged, confirming the pre-testimony contact when pushed further.

The admission follows a series of exchanges in which the defense has sought to establish that Matibag appeared not as a neutral official but at the effective invitation of the prosecution side — a picture now reinforced by his own words.